Introduction:Ever since I started fishing on a regular basis, there were plenty of questions I wanted to ask, but it just seems as if no one has the answers to how fishing works. As I continued to progress through fishing I began to make some sense of fishing and that is the reason I wrote my theoretical perspective on how fishing could possibly work on the Fishing Tips and Stats thread.

Now that I have maxed fishing, there are still plenty of questions I would like answered, but I’m sure no one knows the full details on how fishing works, with the exception of TT devs and execs. Since I still have plenty of questions to address, I decided to do a comparative analysis of the number of fish each species and fish position requires.

Paired Comparisons:

How many fish it takes for rare fish

How many fish it takes to catch a new species at each fishing position

How many fish total for fishing positions 67-70

Fishing Position: Represents #70 being the last fish needed, #69 being the second to the last and so on and so forth.

Standard Deviation: A measure of dispersion in a frequency distribution. It measures the spread of data values.

This comparative analysis should shed some light as to how fishing might work. There are many theories on how fishing works (I will take them into consideration) and I am willing to use a statistical approach to try and elucidate the mysteries of fishing and broaden our knowledge of this “wonderful” task.

This is a summary of the fishing data I have been collecting. I have collected data from over 35 people and have compiled it into this table (Table 1). Table 1 is organized by the fishing position and the average number of fish, and standard deviations that it took to catch a new species at that specific position. Each average represents the average number of fish it took to catch the next new species at any particular fishing position. The same was done for some of the rare species. In addition, I have included the average fishing position these species usually showed up in. The higher the average position, the more likely that specific species was the last fish to be caught by the majority of the individuals in the data sets I collected. Furthermore, I have included the total number of fish required for the last 4 fish, which averaged out at 62,485.15 fish, with a standard deviation of almost 37,000.

Fig. 1 – Average number of fish required to catch for each fishing position

One of the simplest and most useful comparisons to do is to compare the number of fish required vs. fishing position. In comparing the two, the number of fish required for each position seems to incrementally increase from the lower positions to the higher positions. The trend steadily increases from a few hundred to several thousands, which is suggestive that the number of fish required to catch heavily favors the fishing position. The mean number of fish required to catch the 70th fish is 24,416.48 which is larger in amount when compared to the 65th position (5,492.09 fish, Table 1). This is one of the expected outcomes, because as you fish and catch more and more species, the next new species seems to require more fish than the previous one. In contrast to that theory, if you look closely at table 1, the standard deviations for each fishing position have a large variance. The large variance from the mean indicates that the number of fish required for each fishing position is insignificant, suggesting that each fishing position can require the same number of fish regardless of what position that specific species is caught in. One thing is for sure is for some odd reason or another, the trend does favor higher fish requirements for higher fishing positions as seen in the trend line in (Fig. 1), but yet the results are not of significant values due to the large variance.

Fig. 2 – Average number of fish required to catch for each of the denoted species

Since the number of fish required for each fishing position is insignificant, I decided to try and determine if each species of fish had anything to do with the mean number of fish required before catching that specific species. In comparing one species to the next, the three fish that required the most fish (average values) are: Concord (16,016.45 average fish), Grizzly (15,364.82 average fish), and the Full Moon (17,057.89 average fish). There is no significant difference in the number of mean fish required when trying to catch the Concord vs. the Full Moon. The same problem exists with this comparison as with the comparing the average number of fish to fishing position; the standard deviations are far too great. These results suggest that regardless of what species you are trying to catch, there are no fish requirements for catching a specific species. Each can be caught in as little as 1 cast or 100 casts.

Fig. 3 - Average fishing position for each of the denoted species

Since the average number of fish required to catch a new species seemed to not be dependent on the fish species itself, I decided to look at what the average position is for each of these species when it was finally caught. Maybe by looking at when people catch a specific species can help elucidate if there is a specific trend when it comes to catching a new species. Out of all the denoted species, the Concord had the highest average fishing position (68.50) as compared to the All Star (64.82). This help to elucidate possibly why the Concord (16,016.45 average fish) seems to be a more difficult fish to catch than the All Star (6,066.18 average fish), because most people seem to have the Concord as their last fish due to its difficulty. This comparison is seemingly much more valid than comparing average fish values to specific species. In contrast, when you compare the number of average fish required to catch the Devil Ray (9,111.50 average fish) at an average fishing position of 67.45, you would expect to catch the Grizzly with the same difficulty as the Devil Ray since its average position of the Grizzly is 67.59 if this theory were true. This is not the case, because when you look at the average fish required for each the Grizzly (15,364.82 average fish) and Devil Ray (9,111.50 average fish), the Grizzly is more difficult to catch than the Devil Ray. Again, there is no consistent trend to these values, which is suggestive that the number of fish required is independent on fishing position and on rare species, suggesting that there are no fishing requirements to catch a new species.

Table 2: A. The probability factor for the indicated species from fishing position 67-70. B. Overall fishing statistics including boots and jelly bean jars

Since it appears that there is no consistent trend when comparing the number of fish required versus fishing position or species, I wanted to see if a probability could be compiled for each species. Although it does give some insight, the above data has some limitations because it is still represents the number of fish required in between new species, and not the overall probability. An overall probability would give a better statistical value. Since each of the data sets is lacking some information fishing positions 65 to 70, I decided to only run a probability factor from fishing positions 67-70 (the last four fish) since the majority of the data sets contain all this information. From catching one new species to the next one, the 3 most difficult species to catch were in fact the Concord, Grizzly and the Full Moon. Although the standard deviations suggest that there is no significant difference between these three fish and the other rare species when trying to catch the next new species (Table 1); the overall probability gives better statistical input showing the difficulty of catching these fish (Table 2). Although these numbers are limited to only fishing positions 67-70, a probability factor can still be assessed. In comparing the 3 most rare species, Concord, Full Moon and Grizzly, the Concord and the Full Moon have the equal probabilities of being caught, approximately 1:41,000 of a chance for each (Table 2A). Out of all the data sets I have collected, the majority of all the individuals had the most difficult time with the Concord and Full Moon. The Grizzly was the next less likely fish to catch, with a probability of 1:29,000 (Table 2A).

Although these data sets are important, neither of them factor in boots or jellybean jars. These results only contain the number of fish, which upon factoring in boots and jellybean jars the probabilities will worsen. Since none of the data sets contain the information of the number of boots and the number of jelly beans, I had to do a projected or hypothetical probability by running a trial run to determine how often boots and jelly beans are caught on the fishing line. The experiment I decided to run was count the total number of boots and jellybean jars caught while fishing for 1,000 fish, then use these actual results to make a projected probability. The total number of fish, boots and jelly bean jars will are presented as a percentage and actual number caught (Table 2B). During my experimental run, a total of 87 boots (7.94%) were caught and only 9 jelly bean jars (0.82%) out of a total of 1,096 total objects (Fish, Boots and Jellybean Jars) (Table 2B). Since boots and jelly bean jars are caught 7.94 and 0.82% of the time respectively, these values can be used to make a projected probability for the 3 most rare fish species (Table 2A). Using the figures of Table 2B, and factoring in how often jelly bean jars and boots show up, it is only expected that the probabilities will worsen, in which they actually do by approximately 3,000 points (Table 2A, Projected probabilities).

Again, these probabilities are only based on fishing positions 67-70, and I am also assuming that each individual caught only one of these species upon reporting their fishing figures. Plus the projected values are only theoretical and can’t be taken as true results since the actual number of boots and jellybean jars were not reported. Furthermore, since these probabilities are based on fishing positions 67-70, one would assume that these probabilities would worsen if total fish (fishing positions 1-70) were factored in.

Summary:In conclusion I found there is no significant difference when trying to estimate the fish requirements when looking at fishing position or specific species due to the large variation of the standard deviations. Since these values are seemingly insignificant and have no correlation, one can only assume that species are based on a random probability, similar to a lottery. This is validated by the probabilities I generated, with the Concord being the most difficult fish to catch. Not everyone will have a difficulty catching the Concord, but most people will based on the results. Some individuals having difficulties while others seemingly catch these rare fish easily are all suggestive of random probability. These probabilities are distributed in a way that some species might have a probability of 1:10 (common species) while others might have a 1:10,000 or even 1:50,000 or more of a chance. The data suggests that, since the standard deviations are so great, and these fish run on probabilities, each of the species can be caught in as little as 1 try to never, regardless of fishing position or rare species. This is why you might see some people that have been fishing for years and still have not caught their last fish, while others catch their rare species in a few rod casts. You might ask then why do the last fish require so many fish in comparison to fish at the beginning if it’s not dependent on fishing position. Well if you look at fig 3, you will see that most of the time the rare species are the remaining fish and since these fish have such a low probability of being caught, they will in most cases be the last few fish remaining; thus requiring a large portion of fish to finally catch one. In conclusion, fishing is based on RANDOM PROBABILITY!

The only suggestion that I can give, since fishing is purely random, is to use the strategy of catching all the fish your current rod may catch before proceeding to buy the next new rod. I know that gold rod looks tempting, but it gives no more of a benefit than any other rod, with the exception of catching the bull dog fish. If you compare using the steel rod to using the gold rod, you are at a loss because you sacrifice extra jelly beans per cast for using the gold rod. The only reason the gold rod should be bought is to complete your list of fish and catch that last bull dog species.<blockquote>Strategy:<blockquote>• The strategy of catching all the fish for your current rod over buying the next one has 2 added benefits: <blockquote>1. You use less jelly beans 2. Your total pool of fish is smaller, making any ultra-rare fish within that pool more achievable.</blockquote>• You have a higher probablity of catching an ultra-rare, such as the Concord, with a twig rod because the twig rod can only catch a small pool of 38 fish. It is easier to catch 1 fish out of 38 possible species with a twig rod than it is to try and catch 1 species out of 70 with a gold rod.

• Its similar to reaching into a bag of marbles. Its easier to fish out 1 blue marble amongst 19 red ones, than if there were 49 red marbles in the bag. You have a higher probability of finding the blue marble in the smaller pool of 19 red marbles. Same goes with fishing.</blockquote></blockquote>You might ask why I would go through all this trouble to come to a simple conclusion. I’m the type of person that would rather know with actual results than just have a guess at what is going on and never really know the truth. If there is anything I have missed please feel free to comment or add your own conclusions. Thanks.[/size]